But our demands are not level 24/7 hence the need for pumped storage and facilities that can be ramped up at short notice.
Agreed.
I agree that there would be less installations and therefore less intrusive but impact on the environment? Sailing round offshore turbines could be fun. We seem to have accepted pylons these days despite their intrusion.
I guess on balance, my concern is that barrages could have a far greater impact on ecology than offshore windfarms.
The message from "Clot" contains these words:
Ahoy there small sailing vessel approaching down wind. This is the anti-terrorist protection unit broadcasting on a frequency you won't be listening to. We have you in our sights and if you don't turn round and head up wind at least as fast as you are now travelling in this direction we will blow you out of the water without further ado. You have 20 seconds to comply with this message. :-)
The output of a tidal system is roughly sinusoidal, peaking at half tide.
Add two systems, 90 degrees out of phase, and you have an approximation to a continuous supply.
Andy
The message from Andy Champ contains these words:
I can't find anything at the moment that predicts the period during which tidal energy can usefully be extracted but the current front runner for the Severn Barrage seems to be designed only to generate on the flow tides. That would leave each flow tide on its own if there were just 2 systems 90 degrees out of phase.
I presume output could be controlled so that once the barrage starts to generate it gives even output as much as half the time from low tide to high tide might be lost waiting for the head to build. One reference suggested output is proportional to the square of the tidal range* which suggests they will be going for shorter generating times rather than longer.
*Not clear to me why that should be the case (I thought mgh would rule) but no doubt someone will soon be along to point out I have managed to overlook something really obvious.The message from Roger contains these words:
Just to set the record straight by the time I posted that I had edited out my original comment about a 50% hole and rewritten much of the rest on the basis of 2 systems 180 degrees out of phase. Unfortunately something very obvious that should have be changed didn't get changed.
Sods law doesn't really fit but surely there must be a Usenet law about that millisecond between pressing send and the realisation of a stupid mistake.
Yikes - I'm gone! :)
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:22:36 GMT someone who may be "Clot" wrote this:-
They are rather easier to deal with than sand, as a wind farm stays in one place rather then shifting around.
explains navigation for the first major offshore wind farm.
Until it blows over, or you get fog..plenty of ships crash into solid immovable objects all the time..
Never mind, you can use the output of them to put lights on them..oh. Fog=no wind = no lights.
You can't win, with windmills, can you?
Except in la-la land.
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:01:12 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Nice try. However, as usual it is easy to spot the flaws in your assertions. In this case it is particularly easy to do so by reading
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.